Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandrabhaga Dam


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Chandrabhaga Dam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This disambiguation page mentions only one article, rest of all are red links, is there really need of such page when rest of all mentioned dams are non-notable dams and its less likely that someone will make article on them. Thank you.  Human 3015  knock knock • 15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are currently four entries in the dab page. One blue link and three red links.  The only place that the three redlinks link to is the dab page.  Two of the redlinks have two blue links in the entry and the other one has one blue link.  None of the blue links mention a Chandrabhaga Dam.  I do not see any reason to keep this dab page.  Chandrabhaga Dam, Amravati should be moved to Chandrabhaga Dam or Chandrabhaga Dam should be redirected to Chandrabhaga Dam, Amravati.  -- GB fan 15:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 *  Delete  per GB fan. older ≠ wiser 13:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Change to keep per recent changes. Agree with Boleyn that the last two red-link only entries should breed removed until there is a suitable target for them. older ≠ wiser 13:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep What is a non notable dam, and why is it less likely that someone will make an article on them? I don't see any logic behind the statement. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , you got the point. But I said its "less likely that someone will make article on them" because this dab page is made back in March 2013, in this time period of more than 2 years no one (including creator of dab page) tried to make article on said pages. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 14:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any logic. However, if it satisfies you, I will go ahead and plan with Dharmadhyaksha and create the pages. Who knows, we might get another DYK out of it.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * However, my question on what is a 'non-notable dam' remains unanswered. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , you are talking like I'm hardcore opposer of "Chandrabhaga dam". I welcome if you make page on it and I will be more happier if it features on DYK, because you too know that such topics are my area of interest. Regarding notability of Dams, each district in India usually has 10-20 Major minor dams. For example see 20 dams in Nagpur district. We can't make article on each dam unless they are notable like Jayakwadi dam or Koyna dam. If we make article on every dam then India has 650 districts and there can be more than 13,000 Indian dam articles on Wikipedia. Anyways, why anyone will have problem if you make proper article on said dams. Go ahead. "The 20 dam Nagpur list" I have given also has mention of red linked dam in dab page. You can use that source. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 15:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't noticed that my given list says there are 54 "major" dams in Nagpur district, not just 20. So just one Nagpur district has 54 "Major" dams (here they excluded minor dams). So how many dams does entire India has?-- Human 3015  knock knock • 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , Moreover you can read this pdf format government report, they have clearly mentioned "dams of national importance", and there are only 61 dams in India with "national importance" with additional 17 under construction. Of these 61 there are only 5 in Maharashtra and two of them I already mentioned Koyna dam and Jayakwadi dam. Otherwise there are thousands of other "non-notable" dams have been mentioned. "National importance " dams are those dams which have height of more than 100m, while these dams mentioned elsewhere has less than 15m or 10m height and there are thousands of such dams in India. We can make article on anything but we should also look for notability. We should prefer to make article on those 61 dams of national importance which don't have articles. I don't think that all of those 61 plus 17 additional under construction have articles on Wikipedia. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 17:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete only one valid entry., for entry on a disambiguation page (which is basically an index of WP articles), it needs an article of its own, or mention in an article (see MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION). Only one entry here is currently valid. As for what would make a dam notable, WP:NPLACE, WP:GNG and WP:MAPOUTCOMES are probably of most use to you; however, whether they are notable or not is not directly relevant to this discussion, unless you're planning to create the articles asap. Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Human3015, please stop throwing dams of national importance and state importance at me. A dam is a dam. Irrespective of it's size or whatever. If it has enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG, it stays. By the reasoning, no dam that has sources is non-notable. What irks me is that you began this AfD and two XfDs of articles/categories created by Dharmadhyaksha immediately after they nominated two categories that you created for deletion. What is this? Vengeance? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , please don't WP:ACCUSE me of anything, Dharmadhyaksha's 18 categories have been nominated for deletion by other user and I commented there Keep even after he nominated my categories for deletion see here. I never have "revenge" kind mentality that other many users usually have. I always support those things which deserve to stay on Wikipedia. Whatever work of Dharmadhyaksha I nominated is deserve to get deleted and it got delete comment by community. You should not support anybody's work just because he/she is your friend on Wikipedia, in that sense I'm also your friend and we work on same projects. And regarding dams, If you think that no dam is non-notable then you please go ahead and make a valid article on said dams, no one is stopping you. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 03:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:Rsrikanth05 has created the Chandrabhaga Dam, Nagpur now. Would you all please like to review your previous stands now? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Change to Keep per changes. Last 2 entries should be deleted as it stands, but I've left them until this discussion closes in case someone is in process of creating them. Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Boleyn! I had, two years back, enquired with our WikiProject Dams on what the notability criteria for dams is. I came to know that they don't have any fixed criteria as such and case to case decisions are taken if notability is questioned. Btw, per the report (pdf) published by Central Water Commission, an office under Ministry of Water Resources (India), all these four damns fall under the "large dam" definition of ICOLD. That's sufficient notability for them and they obviously are verifiable from other sources as well. So yes, we will have articles on all four. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: As a nominator, I will vote for "keep" now, as dab page now has 2 blue links and thats enough for dab page. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 07:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep because there are now two articles with the same name this dab page is appropriate. I have struck my previous delete recommendation above.  The other two entries should be removed until such time that they have articles also.  -- GB fan 10:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.